UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BRENDA L. CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:25-cv-287-JRK
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for Award
of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. No. 24; “Petition”),
filed June 18, 2026. In the Petition, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an award of
attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the
amount of $9,949.26 and costs in the amount of $405.00. Petition at 1, 4.
Plaintiff represents that Defendant does not oppose the relief requested. Id. at
2, 6.
Plaintiff’s counsel indicates a total of 41.1 hours were expended in the
representation of Plaintiff before the Court, the majority of which expended by
attorneys (37.4 hours) and a small amount by paralegals (3.7 hours). Id. at 3;
see also Doc. No. 24-1; “Itemization of Time.” Plaintiff requests an hourly rate
of $256.13 for the attorney time and $100 for the paralegal time. Petition at 3;
Itemization of Time. Plaintiff is seeking a higher hourly rate than the $125
specified by statute based on the increase in the cost of living since 1996, when
the attorney’s fee rate was last adjusted by Congress. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(2)(A) (permitting fee awards at rates higher than $125 per hour upon
the Court’s determination that cost of living has increased). Having examined
the Consumer Price Index and the representations made in the Petition and
supporting documentation, the Court concludes an increase in inflation does
justify a proportionate increase in attorneys’ fees such that the amount
requested is reasonable.1 Moreover, the hours expended are reasonable.
Plaintiff also requests reimbursement of $405.00 in costs expended for
the filing of the Complaint (Doc. No. 1). Petition at 4. Defendant does not oppose
this request, and the Court finds it to be appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920,
2412(a)(1).
Plaintiff has assigned her rights to any entitlement of attorney’s fees due
under the EAJA to her counsel. See Petition at Ex. 2 (Fee Agreement).
Regarding the assignment, Plaintiff represents the following:
The parties agree that after the Court issues an order accepting
th[e] Petition, the Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff
owes a debt to the government. If the United States Department of
1 See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl (last visited August 19, 2026). In computing the hourly rate adjustment for the
cost of living increase, the Consumer Price Index is generally used for the year in which the
services were performed. See Masonry Masters, Inc. v. Nelson, 105 F.3d 708, 710-13 (D.C. Cir.
1997); see also Gates v. Barnhart, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2002).
Treasury determines that... Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt,
the government will accept Plaintiffs Assignment of EAJA fees...
and pay fees directly to Plaintiffs counsel.
Id. at 5.
In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for Award of Attorney Fees Under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff
and against Defendant for attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,949.26 pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and costs in the amount of $405.00.
3. The Commissioner may exercise the discretion to honor Plaintiffs
assignment of fees to counsel if the U.S. Department of Treasury determines
that Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the U.S. Government.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on August 19, 2026.
Verge Boo KAS
JAMES R. KLINDT
United States Magistrate Judge
kaw
Copies:
Counsel of Record
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.